Sunday, June 23, 2013

Bush was more the heir to JFK than Obama will ever be

From Brother Ivo:

His Grace recently reviewed the bathos that was Barack Obama's speech in Berlin. Brother Ivo commented briefly thereon, repeatedly describing this President and his administration as cynical. It is the precise word for one who chooses to shroud himself in the cloak of the Kennedy legacy whilst actually sharing few of its ideals or priorities.

Obama's visit to Berlin was deliberately timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of that iconic Kennedy moment. He spoke at precisely the same location, but there the similarity ends. He and those who plan his photo opportunities plainly believe that a picture is worth a thousand words, and so were more interested in the form rather than substance.This President is, as our Texan friends might say, 'all hat and no cattle'.

The low numbers attending the Berlin event attracted comment, with apologists explaining that the small audience was a result of it being by invitation only. This should not surprise anyone: the Obama administration is habituated to the media allowing it to define the news agenda, but the intelligent might ask why claims to follow in the footsteps of political giants like JFK and Reagan are not accompanied with their same openness to the people of the city? If you do not want comparison of impact, why copy so much of the format?

Brother Ivo's mind went back in time to President Kennedy's inaugural address (or on video). One cannot help but contrast the two presidents, ostensibly from the same political party.

Obama consorted with left-wing terrorist Bill Ayres, and has been openly sympathetic to the regime of the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. How far is this from Kennedy who, whatever his moral and political failings, was schooled in anti-Communism from the days his father was friends with Senator Joe McCarthy, who employed Bobby Kennedy on his commission to root out Red sympathisers in all parts of public life.

How times have changed in the Democratic Party.

Brother Ivo recalls the patriotic challenge of Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Contrast this with the entitlement agenda of this current President. And Kennedy had a preference for a balanced budget; Obama is the greatest presidential spender in history by far.

One recalls Kennedy's steadfast coolness under pressure as he confronted the bullying might of the Soviet Union, which contrasts with the utterly ineffectual efforts of the current President who has done nothing to prevent the dangerous theocracy that is Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Obama has ever read the speech, he has clearly overlooked the passage which read 'We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed'. Plainly, Obama's vacillating weakness continues to encourage Iran's leaders.

Above all it was Kennedy who defined the times when the USA was willing to utilise its diplomatic strength and military might to further the cause of liberty. In words that could have defined the neo-conservative movement which did indeed draw support from old-school Democrats, JFK defined the foreign policy of subsequent administrations thus:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge – and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do – for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

Would not Israel rejoice to hear such words today?

Reminding himself of those words, Brother Ivo cannot help but remark that in his foreign policy decisions, President George W Bush cashed the cheque that John F Kennedy wrote. And it was not only in foreign policy that Obama's much maligned predecessor showed himself to be the heir to JFK.

Kennedy promised: "To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required – not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

It was George Bush Jnr who created PEPFAR - the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief - which has just delivered its one millionth AIDS-free baby to HIV mothers, and ensured 5.1 million Aids victims can keep the disease at bay thanks to anti-retro-viral drugs being made readily available. This alone is a legacy any president could rightly be proud of, yet the unassuming President lacks the self-publicising gene that seems to drive his successor.

The sneering comedians of the BBC who abuse Dubya at every opportunity do not know their facts or their history. Dubya is almost certainly the better placed to lay claim to the mantle of JFK, yet he probably cares little about this now as he studiously keeps his promise not to criticise his successor, and quietly works to support the cause of the wounded warriors.

Brother Ivo has a confession to make: he did not want George W Bush to win the Presidency. He fell for the deliberate media campaign of disrespect directed at him. But it all changed on 9/11, when we saw the vulnerability of a man faced with awesome responsibility to keep America safe. He heard many saying that Al Quaeda was unstoppable and that none, least of all 'a fool like Bush', could stop a repeat of such atrocities. Brother Ivo began praying for the man whose problems equalled the challenges presented to JFK, and began also to resent the unfair criticism of a man of good character with a strong sense of responsibility carrying such a terrible burden.

Somehow, the Islamist terrorist attacks were deflected for the rest of his Presidency. He discharged his duties, but two wars forced his eye off the ball in relation to matters of economy. He had expected to be a domestic president, but the Office requires you to play the hand you are dealt.

He bore without comment the insult of Obama being awarded awarded a Nobel Peace Prize just 11 days after coming into office, for nothing more than not being President Bush, who had defended the right of Cindy Sheehan to set up a 'peace camp' outside his Crawford home and said nothing when she decamped when President Obama came to office. She has singularly failed to re-locate it to protest a president who continued the wars and continues to operate Guantanomo Bay. It must irritate Dubya that so many scandals have erupted that would have brought deafening protest had he so acted, yet still he keeps his self-denying ordinance, having stated that America can only have one President at a time.

He may not have been the greatest president, but George W Bush seems to have been far more in the Kennedy mould that President Obama will ever be. In due course, Brother Ivo suggests that Dubya's record will be more fairly judged than has been superficially undertaken by lesser men of recent time. He will probably ultimately earn that greatest of accolades: 'Well done, thou good and trusty servant', and that, one suspects, will be considered reward enough.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.(Posted by Brother Ivo)

I have no doubt that Bush sits head ans shoulders above Obama in terms of having purpose and leadership, but I notice you omit one glaringly obvious problem with Bush: IRAQ

The invasion of Iraq was probably the single most important event of his presidency that turned people against him. This was a black moment in US history, alongside Vietnam in terms of its brutality and pointlessness. It resulted in countless deaths and injuries, and has served as powerful recruiting sergeant for Al Qaeda.

Of course, we know that that the media, especially the BBC, had its own political agenda in the way it portrayed Bush, but if you judge a tree by it's fruit, then Bush does not look like the finest tree in the forest.

You made a good point about Obamas nobel peace prize, which is a joke frankly. Obama is a dismal president, but I wonder if the next incumbent could be so much worse, that we mighht be making the same comparisons with him and Obama

I don't think Iraq was invaded to protect it citizens from themselves or even from it's tyrannical leader. It was a decision based on poor military intelligence and the wilful belief that Iraq had WMDs despite there being no hard evidence.

The Bush / Blair duo were trying to Westernise Iraq so that it could enjoy the pleasures of "Liberal Democracy" such as we enjoy in this country today :-(

When you raise Iraq, are you not forgetting that It was JFK who escalated the US involvement in Vietnam?

One does not have to be uncritical to draw the comparison

Both Dubya and JFK had their failings but their political approach is much closer than the comparison between JFK and Obama. This will hugely irritate the Left but if you wish to make a contrary argument we need better than Brother Richard's contribution to date.

He studiously avoids the PEPFAR policy which in Christian terms alone is a matter of great credit not least because it was a moral policy untainted by self interest for either the President or his country.

Brother Ivo. It wasn't meant to be a "contrary argument". You criticise Obama for not ending wars Bush started.But you don't mention that Bush started them, you say that they "forced his eye off the ball".

Incidentally, many who regard Guantanamo Bay as a modern judicial outrage appear to either not know their history or not to have reflected upon a very clear historical precedent- that of the UK's treatment of their own one time threat to national security - Napoleon Bonaparte.

Having appreciated his unwillingness to remain quietly on Elba, and having expended much blood and treasure to defeat him at Waterloo, Britain was not prepared to risk further war and therefore exiled him to St Helena which was deliberately intended both to contain a threat and to isolate him from supporters. It was the 19th century Gitmo.

The ship carrying him there was pursued out of Brixham harbour by a lawyer forlornly waving a writ of Habeus Corpus which he was unable to serve upon the ship's captain who had been told to keep the Emperor off shore precisely to prevent him acquiring the legal rights of Anglo Saxon society whose values he was so hostile to: his followers remain so to this day in the European Commission!

Nick, remembering back, this man is more inclined to see it as follows...

The last of the plans for the invasion of Iraq are in place, Mr PresidentGood, all we need now is some flashpoint, some damn good reason to go in now. Ideas ?What about weapons of mass destruction, Mr PresidentWhat the hell are them, fella{One brief explanation later...}Brilliant. Get me the British prime minister on the red phone

Ivo. Not comparable, that man. Communism was in danger of sweeping through the far east, swallowing everything up to the sub continent. The Americans had supported the Koreans and stopped the swarm there. Why should Vietnam turn out any differently. JFK did right there. Islam on the other hand is well established, and in the blood of those it owns. As we continually see to this day...

There is no dispute that JFK vote rigged. There is now no doubt that Bush beat Gore under the rules - both the Supreme Court and the New York Times ( which has NEVER supported a Republican Presidential candidate) have investigated the facts and acknowledged the victory was clean and clear under the rules.

Commentators are slightly missing a point here, however. Do not use the post to simply criticise Bush ; please explore whether Brother Ivo is correct in objectively placing JFK and Bush closer on the political spectrum than JFK and Obama.

I think you'll find, Ivo, that it is not so much that your pin-up was found innocent of ballot rigging, but rather that it was not found by the Supreme Court beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty of it. But then, considering who was Chief Justice at the time, he was never going to be found guilty, no matter what, now was he?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Eye_%28United_States%29

The two are, of course, not at all the same thing, but if you think they are, then you will have no further trouble with British courts constantly frustrating the attempts of the British Government to deport militant Islamic clerics.

Brother Ivo,US Presidents don't get into office through popularism but by finance. UK PM's are elected through a network of old boy networks. Which is worse?

In the end, it seems to matter not who gets into power but what they do with it when they get it.Kennedy was a man who knew what he wanted and was prepared to stop at nothing to gey it. Bush seemed more old school but relied on his rather poor advisers. Obamer seems to know what he wants but what he wants is not good for society.

The key to a successful leader is not in his orational skills nor in his great intellect but in his integrity as to how he applies his power.Blair nor Brown nor Cameron have any integrity.

I think you will find that this blog tends to find history to be a useful guide to interpreting the present. You may recall what happens to those who do not learn from it....

You will , for example have little chance of understanding the Tensions between the UK and the EU if you do not understand Bonaparte.

Brother Corrigan might usefully read Ann Coulter's careful and fully explanation of the Bush election victory. Perhaps the more important and interesting election was the subsequent landslide.

One perhaps has to be historically un-curious to lump JFK Bush and Obama onto an undifferentiated " spectrum".

Brother Ivo generally finds political hero worship uncomfortable and certainly can criticise Dubya for " taking his eye off the ball " by which he was thinking economically not militarily.

So far he stands by his debating thesis that Bush is closer to JFK than Obama. It will offend the Left for whom JFK is somewhat of an icon despite some distinctly right of centre actions and attitudes. This is what is sometimes called " an inconvenient truth".

Brother Ivo @ 15.04 says, '...JFK is somewhat of an icon despite some distinctly right of centre actions and attitudes.'

The fascinating thing about Kennedy is the manner in which the US electorate was prepared to fall in love with a politician who had the persona of a British aristocrat. Somewhere deep in the US race memory is a longing for the aura of legitimacy that royalty or an aristocracy represent. You can see this repeatedly in US commentary, that the Kennedys, the Clintons or the Bushes as the case may be, are the nearest thing the US has to a royal family.

Despite its impeccable republican origins, the US seems to reach out for the security blanket of a rich and powerful family who will act in the interests of the nation as an ultimate trustee. Obama somehow fails this test.

Brother Ivo is dead-on target in this case. As for those who moan about Iraq, had Bush done nothing but conduct sad memorials, negotiate with indifferent dictators and treat 9/11 as another criminal incident, as some counseled, it would be still raining planes....not just in the US, but everywhere.

Iraq, with its modern and secular infrastructure, but saddled with a vicious and dangerous tyrant, was the most likely place to begin shaking the Arab world and attempting to drag it into this century. It was a chance, a hope, an honest and optimistic neo-conservative attempt which failed not due to lack of trying, but due to the unpredicted resurgence of violent, lunatic Islamism. Which begs the question why the Middle Eastern Studies programs in American universities, the ones that were created to provide useful analyses and projections, but the ones now being run by leftist wingnuts as propaganda offices, continue to be funded.

Iraq, with its modern and secular infrastructure, but saddled with a vicious and dangerous tyrant, was the most likely place to begin shaking the Arab world and attempting to drag it into this century.

I would have thought Turkey would have been the better option if this was the desired objective seeing as how it borders Iraq and geographically adjoins Europe. Lets face things we in the West and me in particular had never given much attention to what is referred to as the Islamic World as long as they stayed out of mine.

We were already committed to a war in Afgahn and chasing after Bin Laden's motorbike. There was no connection between the forementioned millionaire or Al-Qaida and Saddam. There was more reason invade Saudi Arabia home of the 9/11 murderers and Wahabbism - then Bush may have made a legitimate heir to JFK.

GWB simply wasn't up to the job of a CiC abroad on the world stage; he was a Texan for goodness sake! GW wanted to go one better than his Daddy; I doubt he would have even known where Iraq was had it not been for his father's record.

Bush made the phoney case for war against Saddam and used it in a cynical ploy for a personal fight, knowing nothing of the complexities of Islam or history of the Middle East.

I think the guy was nothing more than a sock-puppet of the GOP elite and establishment.

We are all still paying the price (and more) for his brand of John Wane statesmanship.

Dreadnaught, one of the hypothesis behind fighting terrorism is to move unpredictably and to go after substantial targets and causes, rather than just wasting time by focusing only on frontmen and tying up one's skivvies in knots over formalities. Iraq was a major sponsor of terrorism, tried to go nuclear and had used and at the time undoubtedly possessed WMDs. The message, to stay out of terrorism against the US because one can never guess who it will turn against and destroy, worked rather well. The lack of response to Iran for sponsoring and semi covertly executing missions against US and coalition troops weakened the lesson somewhat, with predictable results.

When you form an opinion before having read the material cited-don't we call that " prejudice"?

Brother Ivo will always consider an opponents ideas and argumentv to see if it is convincing. Having shared your view on the election he was persuaded by the evidence. Isn't that how rational folk are meant to behave?

The.re is not space here to rehearse it , thus you were referred to the source.

I am aware that Saddam had some and used WMD and had his nuclear ambitions thwarted but his main target was Shiite Iran, the old enemy; that's why the US backed him (and made good profits in the process) in the Iran Iraq war. Iran was the only country big enough to stand in his way of becoming the great dictator, in a Baathist stated objective of a Pan Arab State with Baghdad at the centre.

There was no logical urgency to attack Iraq in a direct response to the Al-Qaida/Bin Laden 9/11 atrocity. Bush saw Saddam as a soft target who when defeated would provide the laurels to aggrandise his Presidency. The whole 'War on Terror' was a smoke screen to disguise foreign policy ineptitude.

There was UN support for the still unfinished action in Afgahn' but none for an Iraq invasion. Who in their right mind cannot see the stupidity of going to war in a totally removed theatre of operations while already committed in another? But Dubya wanted a quick sound-bite, nation focussed win, with a well known badman leader. We know to our costs, it was always going to be much harder to identify let alone decapitate an ideological opponent such as a war obsessed religion like Islam - our politicians don't even have the guts to admit it now.

Of course this in no way was influenced by the relationship between a major oil state and a man whose family had had cordial relations with the Bush family business and associated acolytes.

I also find the prolonged beatification of JFK a little hard to swallow. I doubt his presidency would have been received so uncritically had he not had the glamour and tragedy of assassination in office?

With Kennedy, the target was far more identifiable as we were all affected by the Cold War; but I'll give you this in connection with Bush, his reasons for invading Vietnam were also sparked by a dodgy manufactured reason; in the shape of Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Brother IVO , surely you must be accustomed[by now] to the thread going all over the place and turning up in the most unexpected places.We haven`t even touched the' gay scene' yet or how the (Roman) Church has got everything 'right' even iF it contradicts God.

"Can't help but notice nobody has offered the slightest argument , let alone evidence, that Obama is the heir to JFK"

I suppose the fact he hasn't started a major war is something to Obama's credit.

There again, for a man who is so paralysed by ineffectuality he probably couldn't arrange a gay wedding in California (there you are, I've managed to get the g-word in), his lack of military actions is probably more luck than virtue.

Ivo, there is no comparison. Jack Kennedy had something about him AND came from a political family. Obama is an upstart whose father cooked for the British army in Kenya. Are you seriously suggesting... well you know the rest.

Every complaint about Obama, and there are numerous, boils down to the fact that he has, in foreign affairs, given Bush his third and fourth terms. Being like Bush is what is wrong with him. How different things might have been.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of Eisenhower’s ending of the Korean War, his even-handed approach to Israel and the Palestinians, his non-intervention in Indochina, his denunciation of the military-industrial complex, and his still-inspiring advocacy of nuclear power as “atoms for peace” 10 years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: civil nuclear power as the ultimate beating of swords in ploughshares. In 1960, John F Kennedy branded Eisenhower and Nixon as soft on the Soviets.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of Nixon’s suspension of the draft, his détente with China and with the USSR, and the ending of the Vietnam War by him and by Ford, an old stalwart of the America First Committee who went on to sign the Helsinki Accords.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of Nixon’s insistence that the United States should launch no war over the Soviet Union’s treatment of its Zionist dissidents, who have turned out to have been just as unpleasant in their own way as were many other categories of those who happened to dissent from the Soviet regime, and who now constitute a significant obstacle to peace in the Middle East, where they are busily engaged in denaturalising both the indigenous Christians and the ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of the Nixon and Ford Administrations’ stark contrast to the Cold War sabre-rattling of the Carter Administration, which was particularly bad for abusing the noble cause of anti-Communism by emphasising Soviet human rights abuses while ignoring Chinese and Romanian ones.

Carter, who was not above electorally opportunistic race-baiting, even happily allowed the Chinese-backed Pol Pot to retain control of the Cambodian seat at the UN after Phnom Penh had fallen to the rival forces backed by Vietnam and therefore by the Soviet Union.

But Carter, for all his unsung prophetic calls against materialism in general and oil dependence in particular, had had the nerve to brand Ford as soft on Communism for his entirely factual statement that Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland were “not dominated” by the Soviet Union.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983, and his initiation of nuclear arms reduction in Europe, for all the heavy Trotskyist influence over his foreign policy.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of the condemnation of the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981 by Reagan and by almost all members of both Houses of Congress, including many of the most hardline Evangelical conservatives, Cold War hawks or both ever to sit on Capitol Hill.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of James Baker’s call to “lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel” in order to “foreswear annexation, stop settlement activity”, and of Baker’s negotiation of the voluntary disposal of all nuclear weapons by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir of Republican opposition to the global trigger-happiness of the Clinton Administration.

And Obama was, at least potentially, the true heir even of George W Bush’s declaration that “Russia is no longer our enemy”, together with his removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia after 11th September 2001, thus ensuring that there has been no further attack on American soil, despite his foreign policy’s having been subject to an even heavier Trotskyist influence than Reagan’s had been, as well as to a far heavier, very closely related ultra-Zionist influence.

The motives you ascribe to Bush are very unconvincing. Perhaps you confuse him with Genghis Khan? Anyhow, Iraq's interest in the Gulf states and Saudi were of a far greater concern, as I recall, than the Iran-Iraq conflict, which was stalemated anyway. The going Arab world thinking was that 9/11 would cripple a decadent US and result in a power vacuum wich would be exploited by a resurgent Islam. This clearly emboldened Sadam enough to begin plotting and scheming takeovers anew. Very bad thing it is to buy into one's own propaganda.

One also must wonder how affected the West was by the Cold War, apart from some being scared silly by the Left's panicked calls for abject surrender. Seems to me Europe is scared of anything that says "boo," including every half-arsed Muslim tin pot warlord from Arafat on. Russian troops lost and stuck and running out of food in a Warsaw Pact conquered Belgium would have been awkward and embarrassing to NATO command; a disruption of the endless chain of oil tankers from the Gulf would have been deadly to the entire world.

Why would Bush or any American President, for that matter, really want to be called the 'heir to JFK', when one strips away the glamour there didn't seem to be much there. Perhaps the only reason why he is remembered so fondly is because of his untimely death?

The Kennedy family had form for being as anti-British as Obama -;Kennedy's father was Ambassador to the UK during WWII and hadn't a good word to say about the British and thought they were done for; this ran in the family because Senator Edward Kennedy did nothing but bend over to the IRA because of his Irish constituency.

In terms of policies he reversed Ike's retrenchment of defence spending and let rip, but with printed dollars looking forward to the time fiat currency whilst hastening the end of the Bretton Woods system of gold backed dollars. He didn't do much in the way of civil rights and it was pot luck the the USSR blinked before he did during the cuban missile crisis. And yes he began the path to war in Vietnam that later Presidents continued.

So why would Bush or anyone else want to be heir to JFK?

For a list of 'great Presidents' you could look at Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Reagan, Truman and the Roosovelt's (Teddy and Franklin) well before JFK?

You read more and more like a conspiracy theorist. Reagan and Bush were Trots eh? And of course it is the 'zionists' (or Jews) who are pulling the strings? It does make me chuckle to read your missives though.

Ivo, the source you referred to was Ann Coulter. The same Ann Coulter who said, "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president". That Ann Coulter. The same one who said, "Clinton's attempt to socialize healthcare was the second most disgusting thing he did in the oval office. I can't remember was the first thing was." This is the Brainiac you're citing for a reference and you expect me to take your opinion seriously, like "rational folk"?

Brother Ivo, I see my intended warning that St Barak's devotees would take offence at GWB's being a better 'heir' to JFK is too late. Never mind, living in Germany gave me to opportunity to watch, on television, his efforts to steal Kennedy's and Reagan's cloaks. I don't think the German's were as impressed as he hoped.

On the subject of vote rigging, am I the only person who finds the combination of many Democrat Party 'strongholds' not requiring Voter ID and returns of 90 - 95% for one candidate in the last Presidential election a matter for concern? If such a situation were to occur in a UK election there would be headlines of "Voter Fraud" on all the dailies, not just the Daily Wail, but it seems not to have raised an eyebrow in the US. More and more I have the impression that the US is losing its crown as "Land of the Free" and the "model of Democracy". The 'security' measures now in place at their airports and even on inland water craft, the monitoring of peoples phonecalls, internet use and emails has reached proportions probably only matched by the STASI in the former GDR or the KGB in the former USSR, yet no one seems concerned.

I think we should be, since it does seem to be the model for the future ...

A very astute comment, and something that is missed by almost everyone.

America's short history is primarily concentrated in its years of establishment.Most of the players; Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Pinckney, Mason etc were of decidedly priviliged or aristocratic stock.Only Wilson, Hamilton and, to some degree, Sherman, could be considered 'Low Born."It is interesting to note that these latter were, by far the most wary of the power of the mob.

To the subject:

Quite frankly Bro Ivo I am astonished that the two presidents,: the first who initiated America's transition from a hopeful, freedom loving land into one of fearfulness, authority and paranoia; and the second who accelerated this decline, can be considered for any merit whatsoever.

If, as seems reasonable to me, the victor in a war would be the nation or creed that forces its opponent to forsake the principles it once held dear. To betray the legacy of hard won liberty, and to declare to its people that they will be in a permanent state of war, and those people accept it: then, the leaders who have steered America into this sorry state should be only held as the most base of wretches.

"Despite its impeccable republican origins, the US seems to reach out for the security blanket of a rich and powerful family who will act in the interests of the nation as an ultimate trustee. Obama somehow fails this test." Indeed, my hound. It's called 'continuity', something that a nation can see and rally round..unless of course you are a dyed in the wool republican, who would rather see yourself in the situation the USA finds itself, of wanting something familiar you can grasp.

The grass always looks greener to those who ignore the lessons from the world around them, does it not, my cute woof woof ?

Thank you Mr IanCad @ 08.09, you can see the same effect in the persistent US adulation of the very immature and untested Prince Harry, who has undoubted charm. US crowds seem to melt in the presence of a genuine aristocrat, just as they did for Jack and Jackie. Manifestations of a deep need in the human psyche? Perhaps even a fear of the responsibilities of personal independence and a corresponding wish to find a crowned head that may lie uneasy on one's behalf?

"Quite frankly Bro Ivo I am astonished that the two presidents,: the first who initiated America's transition from a hopeful, freedom loving land into one of fearfulness, authority and paranoia; and the second who accelerated this decline, can be considered for any merit whatsoever." It had been happening long before these two clowns or jokers had been elected as similar to over here.

The constitution and it's amendments were supposed to be immutable (any law changes were to enhance not undermine it's stated purpose) but as we have seen with our own country and laws, nothing is immutable that politicians and judges cannot change to unequally yoke the equal, against the peoples wishes...salami, sliced piece by piece until all you are left holding is the stringy bit.

Indeed, Ernsty. In a world with a frankly terrifying future there is extraordinary power in an institution that can claim a thousand years in business. A point that may one day see popular re-acceptance of the Church. The secularists and cultural-Marxists will exhaust themselves and be found wanting. The Truth will out.

Imagine our nation with Blair Brown or Cameron as our Head.Good Lord, it was bad enough these chancers were or is our PM, let alone bestriding the world as our 'Nomenclature/ Nomenklatura' as representative in terms of US as a national spirit...Nay, much rather HM than that bunch of immoral spivs.

"The sneering comedians of the BBC" - the sneerocracy, as I call them, because they do have considerable power amongst the Metropolitan Elite, who run everything ... but as for the rest of us - surely nobody gives any attention to these awful people?

Um. I do grovel at your superior knowledge, my kippah (the yid version of the 'umble cloth cap) is well and truly doffed off to you. I shall, therefore, have to be passing something else other than comment tonight and I shall be thinking of my intellectual beating from you then. (:

Politically correct, Ivo? How dare you, sir. My political outrage is based on Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity and solidarity, not leftist bull. It happens that I don't subscribe to rightist bull either, mainly because it is based on Protestantism, an artificially created religion manufactured to validate the rich and powerful's right to steal from the poor. Coulter is like all those American political commentators - not people whose views are seriously held, but are merely a form of entertainment-propoganda. A bit like a British "Question Time" panel.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)